> You can't refuse to submit evidence to court, including things like encryption keys or things only stored in your head - or face penalties including unlimited jail time.

This is a bit more complex in the US. We have the fifth amendment to our Constitution which says "nor shall [a person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

So, we can't be made to testify against ourselves. This has sometimes been interpreted to mean that they can't compel cryptography keys that are stored in our brains, and sometimes has been interpreted the other way.

I'm unaware of any definitive decision that applies universally. I've heard some suggest that passphrases that are themselves an admission of crime are a workaround that ensures you can't be compelled to provide them.

Why would breaking the privacy of Tor users be self-incriminating? If anything, surely it's the evidence of innocence - whatever unsavoury websites were visited via the Tor node were Tor users, not this guy.